Comments

Does NBC's PR department really think all the publicity over their outright cnesorship will really be beneficial? Too bad the left wing isn't as nutty as the right. I'd love to see a bunch of Kucinich supporters chasing Chris Matthews down the street yelling, "You suck!!!"

Well that's good, because with out Kucinich there wouldn't even be a debate...it would just be three candidates arguing over the semantics of what makes each of them slightly different from one another.

"Sec: 9. Liberty of speech and the press. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated."

Looks to me that even under the Nevada constitution, the Judge has no authority in this matter. FWIW, I think NBC is making a mistake by not honoring their original requirements.

FWIW, I think NBC is making a mistake by not honoring their original requirements.

I think the judge is ruling more on a company sliding out of their requirements (contract, if you will) to be in the debate. The attorneys will have to prove that it wasn't a contract, or even an oral agreement made with the candidates, and prove it was only a suggestion for participation.

Why bring up the constitution? This isn't a dispute over freedom of speech, it's a dispute over an agreement between parties.

If you listen to the judge' reasoning for his injunction, he states he is 'offended by that' refering to NBC changing the requirements. He cites no laws to back up his ruling. Just that he is offended.

I get offended nearly every day, does that mean who ever offended me should be legally required to act in ways that only please me? That might seem nice, but odds are it'll offend you much of the time.

LOL Syn, way to frame the Quote so it looks like the judge is ruling on personal feelings rather than facts.

Here's the first part of the quote which is relevant to WHY the Judge was Offended. "If the criteria was one set of rules and you changed the rules in the middle of the game to exclude someone out of the game, i'm offended by that..."

Syngas, that was not his ruling. He was to issue the written ruling this morning.

His full statement was, "If the criteria was one set of rules and you changed the rules in the middle of the game so as to exclude somebody after having invited them, I'm offended by that,"

But this is just what was reported by the press. I didn't watch the full hearing. Did you?

Anyway, if you read what I posted above, you'll see what actual legal arguments are being made and they have nothing whatsover to do with what you're going on about. And, I'm sorry, but you have a rather simplistic notion of what "consideration" is and you are not a lawyer, although it seems that you think you have a full understanding of contract law.

Dar also explained what the legal considerations were, but you ignored that too.

I don't care which political side is taken, it's about time the people use the courts to start kicking around television stations for only supporting what they think should be brodcasted. It should happen more, republican and democratic.

I used to be married to an attorney, so I know enough to not attempt to be a lawyer. I read both of the legal documents and neither Kucinich nor NBC even discuss consideration, which means that it is not even an issue here. Is it possible to get this through your thick skull?

I'm not about to get into a discussion of what consideration is because it's too complex and I am not a lawyer.

Would you be so inclined to make these arguments if the plaintiff were Bill Richardson? I doubt it.

A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fir'd at first Sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless Youth we tempt the Heights of Arts,
While from the bounded Level of our Mind,
Short Views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But more advanc'd, behold with strange Surprize
New, distant Scenes of endless Science rise!
So pleas'd at first, the towring Alps we try,
Mount o'er the Vales, and seem to tread the Sky;
Th' Eternal Snows appear already past,
And the first Clouds and Mountains seem the last:
But those attain'd, we tremble to survey
The growing Labours of the lengthen'd Way,
Th' increasing Prospect tires our wandering Eyes,
Hills peep o'er Hills, and Alps on Alps arise!

More from Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Criticism" for Syngas, the contract law expert and real estate tycoon. :)

Of all the Causes which conspire to blind
Man's erring Judgment, and misguide the Mind,
What the weak Head with strongest Byass rules,
Is Pride, the never-failing Vice of Fools.
Whatever Nature has in Worth deny'd,
She gives in large Recruits of needful Pride;
For as in Bodies, thus in Souls, we find
What wants in Blood and Spirits, swell'd with Wind;
Pride, where Wit fails, steps in to our Defence,
And fills up all the mighty Void of Sense!
If once right Reason drives that Cloud away,
Truth breaks upon us with resistless Day;
Trust not your self; but your Defects to know,
Make use of ev'ry Friend--and ev'ry Foe.

And BTW, I haven't read anything about the case either, other than what's divulged here.

My contract arguement just sounded closest to what kuchinich was arguing from the Local News summary, that the TV station stepped out of the agreement they had reached with the Kuchinich party, that's all.

... Indeed, this detail was not disputed by any of the parties (neither Kucinich nor NBC, but it was mentioned by the judge as a matter of course, and would have been mentioned in any case vis à vis contract law.

This, Syngas, is a far cry from your previous allegations that the judge decided this matter because he was "offended by that" and that this case has to do with "consideration"...

Now that you know what "THAT" is, will you admit that you were talking out of your ass?

If I were you, I wouldn't place the little smiley face after "ruling" as this just proves how ignorant that you were to begin with... Not that you understand what any of this means, of course, as you are an expert in fields that you know little about... A little learning is a dangerous thing...

And i began my rant with the Nevada State Constitution which didn't have anything at all to do with the issues at hand, but nevermind that, cause I kinda almost sorta, in a way knew what I was talking about.. wink wink..

"Mr. Kucinich's claim ... undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment," Las Vegas lawyer Donald Campbell said in a filing submitted to Nevada's high court, which hears all state appeals."

Ok you don't REALLY believe there is a complete 100% independence enjoyed by journalists, where they're 100% NOT influenced by ANYONE in a government position? Really?

The founding fathers had some good ideas. Our nation has grown fat and lazy. When not faced with any real loss of freedom or impending death, i.e. most of us here in US, most folks are complacent.
How many revolutions happen because folks are concerned about someone ELSE'S problem?
How many folks worry about their freedoms getting taken away, until they experience a significant decrease of quality of life because of that loss of freedom?

Wake up guys, there is very little 'free press' in our country left.
Get some perspective and read foreign press (not just UK either as they're quite similar to us these days).

Too bad Clinton, Obama, etc etc. didn't refuse to debate unless ALL candidates were included... Would have cost them nothing, since these are the 'little guys'...

For all you folks quoting amendments and such, WRITE YOUR CANDIDATES and your senators/congressmen, to make your voice heard on this.

none of us here has any power to effect change by remaining silent, or sitting in comfort of our desks, ranting at strangers...

and you can write these guys from the comfort of said desk computer...

Legal arguments are almost always this way on blogs. Parties in the debate tend to insert their opinion on the matter and project that opinion onto the legality of the decision. Case in point: calligraph routinely states that mistakes in death penalty cases are exceedingly rare. He likes the death penalty. He also states that John Edwards made his fortune winning frivolous lawsuits. (Much of Edwards success was in court, with evidence presented to a jury - not class action legal extortion or even out-of-court settlements.) Yet, because calligraph doesn't like Edwards, he's decided his lawsuits are frivolous and apparently listens to pundits who reinforce his prejudice.

I have no idea whether the judge properly applied the law in the NBC-Kucinich question, though generally speaking I would have been surprised to learn that NBC couldn't do what they wanted - including rescinding their invitation - even if I don't like it and I think we should have a different process altogether.

I understand that the law is much more complex than most people imagine it to be. I've met a lot of people who think that they perfectly understand the law... That is until they need the services of an actual lawyer...